Skip to main content
12:30 pm
so our big challenge was trying to figure out how you have this new, focused presidential code, which is really developed for another use, but we are required to adopt and use the california residential code. what we did is go through the california residential code and once again look at what provisions were you there more restrictive than the regular code -- and believe it or not, there were some -- and ones that were more specific. for example, all new residential buildings must have spiked -- fire sprinklers. that is not in the regular california code. we have to bring that provision forward. it has an exemption for
12:31 pm
alterations and additions. those are some of the things we had to go through. we took all those elements that we come were more restrictive and put them into the regular san francisco building code with a key that says that it is from the presidential code. -- residential code. we were concerned about having two separate codes, builders would have to carry two separate code books, engineers would have to understand two different codes. the regular california code standard for fire, protection, the egress, for all buildings in the city, so that we do not have a double standard. >> are we required to comply with the residential code, which was developed for smaller writ -- jurisdictions -- does that
12:32 pm
not mean that smaller jurisdictions are required to comply with the codes that we comply with? >> buildings that fall under the residential code, if you have a building, like in the downtown area, they have to use the regular california code. >> if you are using a one, two- unit building, you have to stick with the regular code? >> at this point, you do have to stick with the regular code. however, it does have some caveat. if your building is -- here is what it might say. you are building a residential building. you have to use the regular code. we had to bring about stuff in. interesting to me is the fact
12:33 pm
that the residential code was developed by the state with the concept of basically providing the same level of construction and safety, fire protection, as the regular fire -- as the regular code. maybe we are more restrictive. nonetheless, we had to go through in every case where they were more restrictive. >> it is curious to me. if you are building a two-unit building, you would have this as an alternate, but we are required to enact more restrictive requirements into our code? >we always make our commitments to the state code but it seems like the residential code would be an alternate.
12:34 pm
>> it is a hybrid, a mix of both. >> yes, you could always use the original code, as it was intended to be more restrictive, but it turns out, they did not pay attention to all the details. i think there are 25 carry- forwards. >> i wonder what other things that i did not see when i was looking through it. >> how much more time as the review process been extended? >> the code review was a big problem for us, but now that it is all in the code, probably not a significant effect on our
12:35 pm
daily operations. everything is clearly in there. once we do training -- >> that is what i was going to ask. do we have some level of training so they are familiar? public not reach will only take place at the point where they are applying for their permit. >> as part of the plan, we have this coded option cycle which we are talking about today. then we have the next piece which is reviewing our administrative bulletin to make sure that they are all correct. then we have this. every year we try to do outreach, energy code training. we are coming up on it. it is already august.
12:36 pm
we will really focus on that in the next few months before the code becomes a effective. -- effective. there are few issues in chapter one that i should mention. i know you have not had a lot of time to review this, but chapter one changes -- things like changing the appeal of masonry. most of that done is is done ate board of appeals. having a seismic investigation and survey committee. we have a lot of other seismic hazards, the groups that have been developed through the city.
12:37 pm
that is purely a superfluous, believe. we had some changes to the use of the code reinforcement rehabilitation fund. dbi money going to the office of housing. now we are retaining some of that money to do some code enforcement, which i believe is a good strategy. we have fees and fee adjustments to be done on a separate time ordinance. we do not generally tried to do all of that related stuff. that is part of the code cycle. that has a different review process and timeline. the director will be bringing forward something in the near future. the housing code is simply
12:38 pm
carrying over the previous code. we are simply keeping our the updated based on the changes in the safety code. although, i understand part of the future plan will be to review the housing code and make sure that it is up to date. we are getting ready to do that. the next steps in this are updating the administrative bulletin, training. this code goes to the public publisher. for your general information, we do not pay the publisher to publish the code. he gives us free copies and they make their money by selling copies to the public. the contract is based on them in committing himself to the public at the lowest cost. it is not that they are finding
12:39 pm
a way to challenge the public but they are required to sell out the lowest price. there will be a new bid later this year. >> will then be in place by implementation time? >> the contract expires by the end of 2011, so we will start right after this is done. soon we will start the new rfp. >> you mentioned online the wing. is that free? >> yes, the contract requires that they maintain all of our
12:40 pm
amendment on line and up-to- date. when there is a change, even to an administrative bullet, they put it online. they are up there right now. recently, i am pleased to say, state codes, for the first time, are available online. for the past few years, it was only purchased because they had a copyright. there was a negotiated deal with the states that would allow other agencies to put up the actual state code online. that has been a big help to a lot of people, actually. i also wanted to say particular thanks to one of our staff members. kirk means. he took over a job after the previous person retired. lou aria passed away a few
12:41 pm
months ago. kirk has done the job of both of them and although it is new to him, he has done an extraordinary job. could i ask mr. fenni to say a word or two on behalf of the code advisory committee? >> i just wanted to tell you, there is a letter in your packet formally asking you to endorse our approval of the amendments. i wanted to talk about the process we used. it is a process that alan and warrants developed a while ago because of the short timeframe, we had to jump on these amendments. we separate the code by discipline. we have four, five standing
12:42 pm
subcommittees. the amendments go directly to the subcommittee for their review. in some committees we have representatives of staff, general public, members of the fire department, so we can hide -- hammer out all of the details. once the said committee reviews those, they are moved to the full committee. that is when we review all other responses. basically, fire, life, safety, green building committee, mep, general, structural. i want to recognize a few of the individuals. allen and lawrence came up with the idea to run this to the subcommittee. kirk has followed through with that process. it really speeds things up because we can get to the amendment. frankly, i think kirk spend a few late-night evenings on the
12:43 pm
administration with it. i also want to point out, the department of the environment was helpful in reviewing what are essentially the two big challenges. the green building -- cal green -- fitting into our green coat. he did a wonderful analysis, different spreadsheet to show that we were more or as restrictive. the one thing that floated to the surface, in cal green, there is a medium building category. i think it is thousandto -- 5000 to 20000 --those would be small buildings to us in san
12:44 pm
francisco. so they are going to be captured in a way that is more akin to the larger buildings. i think that is all. if there are any other questions, i would be happy to answer. >> i have a strong concern for the gray water systems that we are in the process of looking into. is that part of the pummeling -- plumbing, progress moving forward? >> frankly, i am not the expert, so i do not know where that is coming into the picture. >> gray water systems have become an issue. department of building inspection has tried to get ahead of the curve by adopting one of the policies in the gray water system so that we have a basis to review those things.
12:45 pm
we are working with the public utilities commission on gray water programs and there are two folks over there rosie jenkins, susie are the two staffs. they are aggressively trying to encourage, reclaim recycled water, bring water cycles. it is a big issue that you need to coordinate with the health department. they are addressed in some way, raincoat, but not specifically authorizing gray water. there are water-related issues like storm water. the gray water is still under debate and we will be holding a number of meetings to encourage
12:46 pm
the department, if you are interested. >> i want to thank staff and our code advisory committee. clearly, this is a large project. people really give up themselves to best put this forward. i think, along lines of the new code, especially the green coat, maybe we could arrange to have an agenda item specifically letting everyone know what the new rules are. i get approach a lot of by people wanting to build green.
12:47 pm
>> i think we want to give as much information as we can, just to let people know what they need to do and what is available. >> we will be preparing them for the public, educational purposes. >> i would love to have an agenda item. maybe it is more appropriate for our region in the neighborhood -- having a meeting in the neighborhood. >> possibly part of that informational packet, seminar, would be an evaluation, impact of fees that would bring to mind is better to do it up front rather than later. the active role of green conservation, it is everyone's
12:48 pm
responsibility to implement it now. >> i just wanted to make mention about the calgreen, green building requirements. we're moving from prescriptive to performance. calgreen our performance-based code. they are evolving very quickly. it would be nice if we could tell everyone, this is what you have to do, this will be good for the next 10 years. i think calgreen will become law in january. i would not be surprised if we see a emergency amendments coming from the state, reacting to calgreen, then pushing back.
12:49 pm
this is a moving target. there is a snapshot right now. six months from now, it will probably look different. fitch is moving, everybody should be encouraged to do what is on the books right now, but be aware, it is probably going to get tightened over time. if people are on the fence on whether or not they want to go green, it is probably better to do it now and get things in place now instead of having someone tell you one year from now. stay tuned. this will be something that we will be talking about over the next few years. frankly, the department of the environment has been helpful in helping to craft a real word -- a world scenarios in which to implement this stuff.
12:50 pm
>> how one of the things that we should probably mention is the target audience. the code probably affects residential, business is, other buildings. maybe if we do presentations, you should look at the target audience -- this applies to residential. this portion applies to new commercial buildings perhaps, renovations, so we need to consider that. >> last time lawrence put together a presentation, is have an escrow green building amended for published. part of the reason is homeowners are a diverse group. architecture is mainly commercial work. it is easier to target them. but trying to get to the individual homeowner to say all
12:51 pm
i wanted to do was change my water here, what do you mean i have to do this? it is hard to get that message out to them. i would in courage using multiple ways to get the news to folks. >> i want to thank you again, along with staff. i take pride in being part of the commission where we were ahead of the curved to pass the greenest building code in the country, and along with that, progressive ideas will continue to push forward these ideas in a way that everyone wants to catch up the performance curve for both residential and commercial buildings will be the leading edge for energy conservation.
12:52 pm
any closing comments? >> thank you very much. the action we are requesting is that you approve the code and for them to the board of supervisors. i think that is it. >> so approved. >> public comment? >> good morning, commissioners. [inaudible] this green coat sounds wonderful but we should always -- code sounds wonderful but we should always remember in this progress of endeavor, we need justice, it
12:53 pm
needs to be clear. we need to have seminars in our neighborhoods, public hearings -- what do you call it when they get together in a big high school and are encouraged to learn more? also, we are going to proceed to be able to make the people, let them know that this will be a fair game. not just a game of the rich. thank you. i will keep on coming to make
12:54 pm
sure that we all have equal opportunity. that is what life is all about. the rich and poor should all live together happily. there should be no favoring of rich people. thank you. >> thank you, mr. morales. any additional public comment? >> move to approved. >> is there a second? >> roll call on the motion to approve the 2010 california code. [roll call]
12:55 pm
the motion passes unanimously. item 6. discussion and possible action regarding the 2010 cost schedules of building a valuation data. >> are we going to go back to public comment? >> no, we are going to do number six and then go back. >> hopefully, this will not take too long, although you may have questions. every year, the department of building inspection, we have used the cost of valuation. cost the valuation under the building code is the basis for which we put a valuation on
12:56 pm
permits, which in turn, is the basis upon which we charge permit fees. the building valuation is not the valuation used by the assessor's office, the real cost of the building, but is a unifying format so everybody is charged the same amount of fees for the same amount of work, under the premise that we are being reimbursed for the services we are providing. if someone has their brother in law doing it for free, a professional contractor, it does not matter. we value everything equally. in order to do that, the building code says we shall use the marshall swift building adopted schedule -- excuse me. with local modifiers. every year we look at the marshall swift index and attach a local modifiers.
12:57 pm
it comes to you to consider whether to adopt or not, revisions to cost schedule. this year, nationwide, there has been a decline in construction valuation under the marshall swift index. not necessarily -- well -- when me and my team study valuation, if we were to adopt a wholesale change in the marshall swift, we would see a reduction in cost evaluation. we do not recommend that for a number of reasons. we do not believe it accurately reflects san francisco. we have seen an increase of about tuition -- the valuation, not the total amount of construction, the cost has not declined significantly. our service cost, secondly, have
12:58 pm
not proportionally declined either. they have stayed the same or gone up. my recommendation, even though i provide the documentation, my recommendation is we defer consideration of any adjustment or modification of cost of tuition until next year when we get the next cost valuation from marshall swift and then reconsider what our trends and costs are. the goal here is to match income to our scope of services. the only way we can do that is to charge a correct amount of money. if we were to reduce cost evaluation year, we would have to find out a way to increase fees to increase services. there has to be in balance. we have the authority to maintain it, of course, and this is a simple way without doing a
12:59 pm
fee revision, on the leaves. -- i believe. >> is the marshals with updated on a yearly basis, nationally, regionally, how often are the numbers -- how often do they reflect accuracy? >> they may updated more than annually. we get an annual update. it comes at the beginning of february. it is a national scale, but we have local modifiers as well. bay area multipliers. it is not really locally focused. it is pretty broad. regionally, modified. that is -- we do our best to make a reflection of san francisco, but it is not intended to be specito

September 7, 2010 11:30am-12:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY California 6, San Francisco 4, Marshall 3, Us 3, Lawrence 2, Calgreen 2, Unit Building 1, Mr. Fenni 1, You 1, Cal 1, Mr. Morales 1, Raincoat 1, The City 1, Rosie Jenkins 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color